Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025 - NDPS Act

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 8 r/w. 15 and 54 – Conscious Possession – Presumption under Section 54 – Burden of Proof - The appellant was convicted under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act for possession of 50 kg of poppy husk. The prosecution's case rested on the recovery of the contraband from the appellant's possession while he was traveling on a train. The appellant argued that he was not in conscious possession of the contraband, claiming the cartons could have belonged to any passenger. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the prosecution had established conscious possession. The Court emphasized that "possession" under the NDPS Act implies not just physical possession but also awareness of the nature of the substance possessed. Once physical possession is established, the burden shifts to the accused to explain how they came into possession and prove lack of awareness of the contraband's nature. The Court noted that the appellant's explanation for being found with the cartons was unconvincing. The Court further relied on Section 54 of the NDPS Act, stating that when the accused is found in possession of a prohibited article and fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, a presumption arises that the accused has committed an offense under the Act. The Court rejected the appellant's arguments and dismissed the appeal. Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 100 : 2025 INSC 96Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act applies to all substances listed in the NDPS Act's Schedule, irrespective of their omission in the NDPS Rules. The accused must prove that their dealing was for authorized medical or scientific purposes and complied with the NDPS Act, Rules, or orders to avoid liability. (Para 90) Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434 : 2025 INSC 498Section 8(c) - Whether dealing with a psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act, but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, constitutes an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. Held, dealing in a psychotropic substance like Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, listed in the NDPS Act's Schedule but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, constitutes an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act unless done for medical or scientific purposes, in accordance with the Act, Rules, or orders, and with proper authorization. The Court overruled the trial court and High Court's reliance on State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, (2007) 1 SCC 355, affirming Union of India & Anr. v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande, (2014) 13 SCC 1, which held that all substances in the NDPS Act's Schedule are prosecutable. The charges under the NDPS Act against the Respondent were reinstated, and the High Court's decision was set aside. (Para 38, 54, 90, 156) Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434 : 2025 INSC 498Sections 8(C), 21 and 29 - Respondent was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in a joint operation where 1280 grams of brown powder (allegedly heroin) was seized. Two samples sent for testing to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRPL) returned negative for narcotic substances. Despite this, the NCB sought re-testing of a second set of samples, which also tested negative. The respondent was released after four months of confinement, and the NCB filed a closure report. The High Court, while adjudicating the bail application that had become infructuous, awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for wrongful confinement. Held, the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by awarding compensation in a bail application, especially since the bail application had become infructuous due to the respondent's release from custody. Re-testing of samples, despite the first negative report, was improper, but compensation claims should be pursued under appropriate legal avenues, not in bail proceedings. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting compensation, holding it to be beyond the scope of Section 439 CrPC. Appeal partly allowed; compensation order set aside. (Para 2 & 7) Union of India v. Man Singh Verma, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 265 : 2025 INSC 292Section 20 – Absence of evidence linking accused to contraband - Acquittal – The appellant, a taxi driver, was convicted under the NDPS Act for the recovery of 20 kilograms of ganja from his vehicle after two passengers fled upon interception by the police. The appellant argued that he was unaware of the contraband as it belonged to the fleeing passengers. No incriminating material was found on his person, and he did not attempt to flee. Held, merely failing to provide details of the passengers, did not establish the appellant's connection to the contraband, especially since no effort was made to trace the passengers. It was unreasonable to expect a taxi driver to know the details of his passengers. The conviction was set aside as the prosecution failed to...

Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025 - NDPS Act

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags